Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
In terms of 'hyperfocal' focusing for things like landscape, it always baffles me why people would focus on something that is not the point of interest. For example, a 'landscape' scene with plenty of 'infinity' detail and some closer objects looks better to me (and perhaps others) when the small trees in the distance (infinity) are resolved very well; they need the extra resolution otherwise you won't be able to tell they are tiny trees. As objects get closer and bigger they can tolerate less resolution. In fact a very close tree can be pretty blurry and you can still tell it is a tree. This progression of a similar resolution for all objects in the scene works out just right when focused at infinity, not at the hyperfocal distance.
I agree with you on this. I find in most cases with near-far detail, you are better off being infinity-biased with your focusing, even though technically depth of field is not maximized.

Bob, diffraction or not, one would assume near objects would be sharper when the point of focus is nearer to them vs focusing at infinity. Yet that is not what I am observing. It seems completely counterintuitive.